Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-05-31
THE RAILROAD LANDS.

IL Az v boAhe
fngtGn Involving Lands of the
panicS in DakOta
Washington May 27-The ST. Paul.
Minneapolis & Manitoba road has peer
preparing through it's attorneys, Curtis
& Burdette OF this city, to argue for q re-
view by Secretary Lamar OF his decision
last winter in the Mattson case, by which
the road lost not only the tract of land
involved, but was also informed that it's
map fled in 1865, after surveys were
made, would be considered the map of
definite location, and not that of 1858,
by which the road grant was made.
This will destroy the roads title to "a
large quantity OF land within Its grant
which settlers have located upon. The
case was deliberately argued a few DAYS
age, aud to-day q rehearing was refused.
Following is the secretary's letter:
The controlling question involved in
this motion ia set Tor the third ground
of error, to wit: at was error not to
hold that the map filed in 1869 was in
furtheranoe of that filed in 1857; not o
new location OF the line OF the road, but
the pointing out of such former location,
as the map stated connection with the
lines of the public survey which, in the
meantime, has been extended over SAID
lands" The map Of definite location
opposite tbe map in question, fled in
1857 before the public survey was ex-
tended o1e=.5is land, was not approved
by the secretary of the interior. The
rulings of the department at that time
was that no map of definite location
could be approved until the lands we're
surveyed and until approved, the COM
pany was not prevented from changing
it at any time. So long as they were
authorized to change the location Of the
road no rights attached by virtue of
such location. In view of the ruling OF
the department that the map Of definite
location of 1857 made prior to survey
was not such a ditinite location OF the
road which would determine their rights,
although euoh location was adopted by
the company in fling their map OF de-
finite location in 1859, in connection with
the public surveys, / refuse to revoke
my decision OF Jan. Is, 1887.
AREHEARING ORDERED.
The secretary OF the interior has order
ed q rehearing in the case of the North
ern Pacific railroad VS.. j.. Ostland. who
was allowed by Commissioner Sparks,
by letter OF March IL. 1886 to file on the
northeast quarter of section SO, township
LAG, range 81, Fargo land district. Those
lands lie partly within the Northern
Pacific grant and are somewhat involved
IN the extinguished Indian title. Ost-
land settled or the land in July, 1871.
and the grant was withdrawn from settle.
ment In March, 1872. sThe complications
IN this case are as follows;
The Goose river divides the tract, flow
ing eastward through the north half.
That river forms the northern boundary
OF thu" Indian country, formerly CLAIMED
by the Wahpeton and Sisseson band of
Sioux. The southern half of the quarter
section and portion of the north half
fall on the said Indian country, The
remainder of the tract was open
public land at date of settle
ment. The indian title to the lands
south of said river was extinguished
May 2, 1878. after the withdrawal on
general route and prior to definite loca-
tion. The method Of disposing of the
claims OF settlers along said river was
determined by the department. in it's
decision of July %, 1880. The
proposed that "In adjusting the claims
of settlers upon odd sections on the
north Of tho river outside the former re.
serve, who settled prior to the with
draw wal OF Feb. 81, 1879 and were thus
legally entitled to enter, that where by
the survey a portion of the smallest
legal subdivision embraced by such
CLAIM be found to extend across the nm.
meandered stream and include q portion
OF the former Indian lands to which set
Element rights could not attach such
portion may be awarded to the settler il
it be less than one-ha1f the area of the
legal Subdivision, but if 1t be more than
one-half the subdivision shall be awarded
the company
This proposition the, commissioner
recommended be accepted to avoid the
expense OF an allotment and meanderinp
ofNthe stream. In Conclusion the secre.
tary says:
1 am unable from the record to ascer.
lain what portion OF the claim it covered
by the settlement of Ostland, you will
therefore order q hearing to ascertain the
fact. TT the settlement is north of the
river claimant will be allowed to file for
the north half of the quarter section, if
south of the river, the tract will 20 to
the company. In any event, the right
to the southern t.alf Of the quarter Sec
ton is in the company under the decision
in the case of Butts vs. Northern Pacific.
9HZ 4tA M